USPAP Minimum requirement to Inspect

[KD247]

... in a valuation assignment of an intellectual property right, how does one perform an inspection?

That's what she said.

Thanks you guys. Best 13-year-olds-arguing thread yet. Mark, you owe some gratitude for those who have taken you seriously. Seriously.

 

[AnonApprsr]

The property doesn't even have to exist, let alone have to be inspected to be appraised. That's a basic principle and an appraiser should know that before they perform any appraisal, on any property, whether proposed/existing or inspected/described on a napkin. Come on people, appraisers are supposed to be better than this!

 

[mark hurlock]

The property doesn't even have to exist, let alone have to be inspected to be appraised. That's a basic principle and an appraiser should know that before they perform any appraisal, on any property, whether proposed/existing or inspected/described on a napkin. Come on people, appraisers are supposed to be better than this!

Who said an inspection has to be performed on a property that doesn't exist?

Come on people, appraisers are supposed to be better than this!

 

[mark hurlock]

That's what she said.

Thanks you guys. Best 13-year-olds-arguing thread yet. Mark, you owe some gratitude for those who have taken you seriously. Seriously.

I have been in many USPAP continuing ed classes that made quite a stir over this very topic. The instructors themselves seem to enjoy watching the class argue over it.

Even Don Clark said “it's technically a requirement”. Please define the difference between a requirement and a technical requirement. Thanks.

I honestly don't see why so many trivialize USPAP interpretation. Because when you get down to it, it's NOT the particular topic but the ability to interpret and apply the principals. And many have demonstrated the lack of that ability.

Most rules, regulations and laws, etc, utilize words such as may, should, must and shall for good reason. Requirements are often followed by another very important word, “except”.

USPAP does not follow this typical structure of most regulations. This is why it is often misunderstood as being ambiguous.

There is no rule that a statement must be followed by “except” in order to establish an exception. USPAP does not require an inspection. But just because it does not actually say that with an “except when the scope of work requires it” does NOT mean it is not required when the scope of work determines it to be.

Call it a play on words all you want and consider it a joke but I can stack six lawyers who will argue over ONE word in any document to prove their case.

In this particular thread, the argument is over the incorrect use of the word “ever” when making a statement about required inspections.

 

[mark hurlock]

That's what she said.

Thanks you guys. Best 13-year-olds-arguing thread yet. Mark, you owe some gratitude for those who have taken you seriously. Seriously.

KD,

in reference to your 13 year old comment, I do agree that many on this forum like to dish it out but can't take it. That is a common characteristic of a 13 year old.

 

[residentialguy]

'Correct answer: maybe

I tried to tell ya :new_all_coholic:

 

[KD247]

... I do agree that many on this forum like to dish it out but can't take it. ...

Actually, I was thinking less of the personal interaction and more of the lengthy back and forth regarding semantics and suppositions. Lauren's question was adequately answered by the second reply.

... In this particular thread, the argument is over the incorrect use of the word “ever” when making a statement about required inspections.

Which leads to the broader argument as to whether it's practical to dissect USPAP into such small bits. Given an unquestioning audience, USPAP (and, for that matter, the Bible, and the Constitution) can be subjected to ridiculous and pointless interpretations that are supportable but are not useful and are clearly counter to the intent of the document. The intent of USPAP is made clear by the title; it's a compilation of standards, not an appraisal instruction book. Does the Bible tell us that we should brush our teeth? Same kind of question.

...Most residential appraisers appear to be unable to differentiate USPAP from GSE requirements.

And that's why a simple question turns into a seven page thread.

...
Lender:
I am confused, yes as discussed earlier this is a new assignment with a new effective date which means that yes you must meet the minimum criteria set forth in USPAP for each assignment. I would expect you would have a new file for this assignment to keep the comps, communication, and other important documentation. I was not aware that it is a USPAP minimum requirement to inspect a property could you help me identify that in USPAP. That seems to be your basis.

USPAP in addition allows you to leverage any relevant work from the prior assignments and the scope of work is not required to be the same as you well know.

It sounds like the lender is coming from a reasonable position and the question isn't whether the appraisal will be compliant with USPAP but rather whether the scope of work will be adequate for the appraisal's intended use.

 

[mark hurlock]

Which leads to the broader argument as to whether it's practical to dissect USPAP into such small bits.

There are some appraisers who believe a property literally is never required to be inspected. There are appraisers who think that because an inspection is never required, they can make up an assumption without a reasonable basis and complete exterior inspections with no data other than what they suppose for the purpose of satisfying a client request. I conclude they failed to interpret when an inspection is required.

It is my interpretation there is one time USPAP requires an inspection and that is when the scope of work determines it to be necessary.

Therefore, saying it is not ever required is false. I don't understand your objection to communicating that interpretation.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

There are appraisers who think that because an inspection is never required, they can make up an assumption without a reasonable basis and complete exterior inspections with no data other than what they suppose for the purpose of satisfying a client request. I conclude they failed to interpret when an inspection is required.

I cannot think of a state board that buys that argument.

 

[KD247]

... Therefore, saying it is not ever required is false. I don't understand your objection to communicating that interpretation.

Aha, now I see what you're saying. But take the double negatives ("not ever" and "false") out of the statement, and you're saying that sometimes USPAP requires an inspection. Technically correct (because USPAP requires an appropriate scope of work, which may or may not include an inspection) but misleading, because USPAP doesn't have an "Inspection Rule".

Parts of USPAP are very poorly written. The AO statement "An inspection is not required by USPAP" can be easily misinterpreted. The Scope of Work Rule, which says that the appraiser must determine an appropriate scope of work (sometimes including an inspection) is much easier to understand.

...Is there a USPAP minimum requirement that I must re-inspect. ...

No, provided that you can produce a credible appraisal without re-inspecting the property.